1. Multilevel governance in territorial cooperation
Rationale, trends and future perspectives
23 March 2011 | Gödöllö

2. Multi-level governance in ETC: a daily reality
Territorial Cooperation programmes:
European laboratories of multi-level governance
National
Regional
Local
Euroregions etc
Federal
Decentralised
Centralised
Old MS
New MS
Accession countries
Third countries
Majority
Consensus
Territorial cooperation: with 2.5% of the Structural Funds budget, a cost-efficient ways towards European integration (7.5 bn €)
ETC also covers both EU internal and external borders – with mostly very different governance models
Other: institutional and political culture
Majority-consensus: decision culture
Mention also macro-regions
Leading to different possible scenarios…

3. Multi-level governance in ETC: an example
Decision level
Project Level
Operational Level
Monitoring Committee
Nat.
Nat.
Reg.
Reg.
EGTC or …
COM
Nat.
Contact points
JTS /MA
Reg.
Reg.
EGTC or… Na
Project
partners
EGTC or…
Nat.
Nat.
Reg.

4. Multi-level governance in ETC: an example
Decision level
Monitoring Committee
COM
Nat.
Nat.
Reg.
Nat.
Reg.
CBC
Reg.
Programme areas: merging of programmes, new eligibility rules with 150km maritime borders, 10 and 20% rules - e.g. France decentralisation towards regional level in period. Delegation of tasks and responsibilities. Decentralisation process in many EU countries (see CoR study on decentralisation in Europe)
Reduction of programme bodies: no more mirror structures (national authority, sub-MA etc), one central JTS now compulsory, merging of MC and SC possible, etc. Also in programmes between new and old MS we observe a trend in that joint programme management bodies have been set up, and in quite a few case these bodies were moved from the old to the new MS between last period and
INTERREG Programmes managed by a cross-border institution – NO LISTING HERE, these are a few examples:
Euregio Meuse-Rhine (JTS, MA and PA) (private Dutch association with Belgian and German members – because no interstate agreement covering all 3 countries)
EUREGIO, Euregio Rhine-Waal; Euregio Rhine-Meuse North (one programme – 3 sub-programmes/3 JTS):
EUREGIO = Association under German Law
ERW and E-rmn = Public bodies (Zweckverband) based on the Anholt agreement
PAMINA (GLCT/LGCC under the Karlsruhe Agreement)
Saarland-Mosel-Western Palatinate (JTS and MA) – GIP (Public Interest Group – based on French law of 1992)
Oresund Region (JTS) – Öresund Committee as private Dutch association
Ireland-Northern Ireland – SEUPB as cross-border body
Ems Dollart Region
Flanders-Netherlands (JTS of sub-programmes)
Euregio Karelia (JTS?)
Kvarken-Mittskandia – Kvarken Council (association FI/SE based on the Nordic Cooperation)
EGTC: the EGTC for programme management is specified in article 18 of Regulation (EC) No 1080/2006
4) e.g. big countries always have their say. Negotiations before decisions. Decision-making sometimes long and complex. Involvement of socio-economic sector limited. Private sector participation limited and still very difficult (many programmes are reluctant due to state aid regime). EGTC set up perceived as loss of influence by participating countries and central level
First bullet: Decentralisation of what?
Sub-committees
Reg.
Reg.

5. Multi-level governance in ETC: an example
Operational Level
JTS /MA
Reg.
Intermediate Body
EGTC
Reg.
EGTC can also act as MA/JTS according to article 18 of 1080/2006
Reg.
Reg.

6. Multi-level governance in ETC: an example
Project Level
Final beneficiary
EGTC
Reg.
EGTC can act as sole beneficiary – fulfils the LPP. Additional partners can be added though (e.g. private etc)
Reg.
Reg.
private

7. Multi-level governance in practice
Trends in territorial cooperation:
Institutional decentralisation in many countries
More strategic focus, larger programme areas, more funding
 New governance models: top-down project generation, strategic projects, transnational/national sub-committees, local contact points etc.
Joint governance through joint management structures
Reduction of programme bodies (often related to longevity of cooperation).
EGTC and other instruments: collegial multi-level programme management, management of sub-programme, grant management (e.g. Small Project Fund), etc.
Involvement in macro-regional strategies
Persistence of hidden rules and bottlenecks
Programme areas: merging of programmes, new eligibility rules with 150km maritime borders, 10 and 20% rules - e.g. France decentralisation towards regional level in period. Delegation of tasks and responsibilities. Decentralisation process in many EU countries (see CoR study on decentralisation in Europe)
Reduction of programme bodies: no more mirror structures (national authority, sub-MA etc), one central JTS now compulsory, merging of MC and SC possible, etc. Also in programmes between new and old MS we observe a trend in that joint programme management bodies have been set up, and in quite a few case these bodies were moved from the old to the new MS between last period and
INTERREG Programmes managed by a cross-border institution – NO LISTING HERE, these are a few examples:
Euregio Meuse-Rhine (JTS, MA and PA) (private Dutch association with Belgian and German members – because no interstate agreement covering all 3 countries)
EUREGIO, Euregio Rhine-Waal; Euregio Rhine-Meuse North (one programme – 3 sub-programmes/3 JTS):
EUREGIO = Association under German Law
ERW and E-rmn = Public bodies (Zweckverband) based on the Anholt agreement
PAMINA (GLCT/LGCC under the Karlsruhe Agreement)
Saarland-Mosel-Western Palatinate (JTS and MA) – GIP (Public Interest Group – based on French law of 1992)
Oresund Region (JTS) – Öresund Committee as private Dutch association
Ireland-Northern Ireland – SEUPB as cross-border body
Ems Dollart Region
Flanders-Netherlands (JTS of sub-programmes)
Euregio Karelia (JTS?)
Kvarken-Mittskandia – Kvarken Council (association FI/SE based on the Nordic Cooperation)
EGTC: the EGTC for programme management is specified in article 18 of Regulation (EC) No 1080/2006
4) e.g. big countries always have their say. Negotiations before decisions. Decision-making sometimes long and complex. Involvement of socio-economic sector limited. Private sector participation limited and still very difficult (many programmes are reluctant due to state aid regime). EGTC set up perceived as loss of influence by participating countries and central level

8. ETC Proposals for the next programming period
Some ETC contributions to 5th Cohesion Report consultation:
Embed programme strategy into national and European strategies
Programme budget allocation
Decision-making level: Result-oriented steering and monitoring
Operational level: make EGTC more ETC-friendly
Project level: e.g. involve private sector: simplified modalities and state aid exemption for ETC
Inclusive governance: Involve all levels and partners in programme preparation and throughout monitoring
Thematic concentration for a stronger governance
All levels: including socio-economic actors
I am not sure about the term ’Strategic governance’. Do you mean passing down the strategic focus from the higher level to the lower? In this context, it is being discussed, e.g., to include the macro-regions in the partnership contracts (ie the NSRFs) to make sure they will be reflected in the OPs.

9. Thank you very much for your attention.
Please don´t hesitate to contact us
for further information or visit